Can this be right???

Rick38

Under the sale of goods act the retailer (staples) are infringing your statutory rights. They have clearly sold you goods which are not 'fit for purpose' of 'as advertised'.
You have every right to demand a refund, providing you have proof of purchase, HOWEVER, be warned that if you accept a replacement or a repair, you have forfeited your right to a refund and the retailer has every right to refuse a refund, insisting on a repair or otherwise.
Please do not be misled with the 'reasonable time' or guarantees. This is just spin used by retailers to put people off from using their rights.
You are being shafted by the retailer, don't let them away with it!

hippey

The retailer (Staples) are the people you should deal with, they are the party to the contract, however they may have an agreement with the Laptop manufacturer that they deal direct as it's quicker (I don't know if this is the case) however it can be argued that you have had a reasonable time to inspect the goods, therefore you have deemed to have accepted them.

BUT

Are they fit for purpose? Well, no. However the retailer has to be given a chance to correct this, i.e. a repair / replacement. This would be the option that should be taken first, then should the repair be unsatisfactory or unsuccessful then I would expect the retailer to be giving a refund, if the item appears to have suffered external damage / excessive use etc... then they could reasonable knock off a portion of the money.

From what you say it appears that as it's new you could argue that you have not had reasonable time to inspect the goods, however I doubt this would stand up in a court, unless you could get the member of staff who you bought this from to agree that this was the basis of the contract. (Not really likely)

Having said that, honestly, I would push (nicely) for a replacement based on what you agreed with the store staff, if you don't get that then it is going to be the repair route.

krystal-divination

In my experience my 1st lap top was within the 30days and was changed
the 2nd one i had for 6wks and same overheating problem and with some conversation with the store and i told them i would buy another make for bit extra the deal was done.

Have a chat with the store and see what you can negotiate they don't always stick to the 28day rule they set.

all the best.

Masquerade_2

I had a very similar situation with Comet a few years ago when we bought an Xbox from them.

It only worked for one hour on Xmas day. Unfortunately we were only entitled to a repair. I wrote a polite letter of complaint to Comet but got absolutely nowhere, in fact they were extremely rude. I vowed never to shop there again and I haven't!

Although they were right in only having to offer a repair as opposed to a replacement I felt their customer service was poor. It was obvious the machine was brand spanking new and I felt it should have been replaced really. The branch manager was so awful to us.

Having said that the Xbox was repaired quickly and was absolutely fine although we dealt directly with Microsoft to get it sorted.

In your case you are only entitled to a repair. I work in the legal profession and can assure you Staples are acting correctly, annoying though it is!

I hope you get it sorted.

Kimitatsu

Hopefully this will clarify a few details :

Subject: Sale of Goods Act, Faulty Goods.
Relevant or Related Legislation: Sale of Goods Act 1979. Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002.
Key Facts:
• Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale).
• Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.
• Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.
• It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract.
• If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances)
• For up to six years after purchase (five years from discovery in Scotland) purchasers can demand damages (which a court would equate to the cost of a repair or replacement).
• A purchaser who is a consumer, i.e. is not buying in the course of a business, can alternatively request a repair or replacement.
• If repair and replacement are not possible or too costly, then the consumer can seek a partial refund, if they have had some benefit from the good, or a full refund if the fault/s have meant they have enjoyed no benefit
• In general, the onus is on all purchasers to prove the goods did not conform to contract (e.g. was inherently faulty) and should have reasonably lasted until this point in time (i.e. perishable goods do not last for six years).
• If a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract (e.g. were not inherently faulty)
• After six months and until the end of the six years, it is for the consumer to prove the lack of conformity

What is an inherent fault?
A fault present at the time of purchase. Examples are:
• an error in design so that a product is manufactured incorrectly
• an error in manufacturing where a faulty component was inserted.
The "fault" may not become apparent immediately but it was there at the time of sale and so the product was not of satisfactory standard.

Do I only have rights for 30 (or some other figure) days after purchase?
No. Depending on circumstances, you might be too late to have all your money back after this time, but the trader will still be liable for any breaches of contract, such as the goods being faulty. In fact, the trader could be liable to compensate you for up to six years.

I know I can demand my money back within a "reasonable time" but how long is that?
The law does not specify a precise time as it will vary for most sales contracts as all the factors need to be taken into account to be fair to all sides. The pair of everyday shoes may only have a few days before the period expires but a pair of skis, purchased in a Summer Sale, may be allowed a longer period by a court.

Is it true that I have to complain to the manufacturer?
No. You bought the goods from the trader, not the manufacturer, and the trader is liable for any breaches of contract (unless he was acting as the manufacturer's agent).

Do I have to produce a receipt to claim my rights?
No. In fact the trader doesn't have to give you a receipt in the first place so it would be unfair to say that you had to produce one. However, it might not be unreasonable for the shop to want some proof of purchase, so look to see if you have a cheque stub, bank statement, credit card slip etc., and this should be sufficient.

Must I accept a credit note instead of a refund?
It depends on why you want to return the goods.

• If you have changed your mind, then the shop doesn't have to do anything.
• But if the goods are faulty, incorrectly described or not fit for purpose, then you are entitled to your money back (provided you act quickly), and you certainly don't have to take a credit note
• If you do accept a credit note in these circumstances, watch out, as there may be restrictions on their use.
• If the shop displays a sign stating they only give credit notes instead of refunds, they might be breaking the law and you could report them to Consumer Direct on 08454 04 05 06. Consumers in Northern Ireland should contact Consumer Line on 0845 600 6262.

What does the "reversed burden of proof" mean for the consumer?
It means that for the first six months the consumer need not produce any evidence that a product was inherently faulty at the time of sale. If a consumer is seeking any other remedy the burden of proof remains with him/her.
In such a case, the retailer will either accept there was an inherent fault, and will offer a remedy, or he will dispute that it was inherently flawed. If the latter, when he inspects the product to analyse the cause, he may, for example, point out impact damage or stains that would be consistent with it having been mistreated in such a way as to bring about the fault.
This reversal of the usual burden of proof only applies when the consumer is seeking a repair or replacement. After the first six months the onus of proof is again on the consumer.

Now to me this states VERY clearly that the OP is right to take this item back to the place that she bought it from and she is well within her rights to ask for a refund immediately.

Please all play nicely its distressing to find you have bought a costly item and that it does not work especially if it was for a child.

Masquerade_2

It's all very well quoting the SOGA but this will only be relevant if you choose to take the matter further e.g. to court. Is it really worth doing that?

The argument that will be used is that the lap top is not brand new - it was bought in October. Despite the fact that it has not been used you can't actually prove this.

I know it's really really annoying and you have every right to be cross but if I were in your shoes I would accept the repair.

Good luck.

minxtress

I think if some techy person was to go on the laptop and check its history or whatever they would be able to see it has had no use, also it still has sticky things all over it preventing it from being used so yes it is clear to see it is unused and brand new.

Kimitatsu

The purchaser has made the contract with the trader not the manufacturer and therefore Staples SHOULD be giving her either a new laptop or offering her a refund. Too many stores hide behind the excuse the contract is with the manufacturer where the SOGA clearly states otherwise.

The SOGA is there to protect the consumer and is valid in everyday transactions not just when going to court.

Masquerade_2

minxtress wrote: »

I think if some techy person was to go on the laptop and check its history or whatever they would be able to see it has had no use, also it still has sticky things all over it preventing it from being used so yes it is clear to see it is unused and brand new.

Do the sticky bits actually prevent it from being used?

If this is the case then you can prove it is brand new. This will help your case.

Unfortunately it will still come down to the timescale of everything. Where is the cut off point and who decides what is fair? There are no hard and fast rules for what "reasonable" actually means.

If you bought it six months ago or even a year ago would you still be expecting a replacement?

I am just playing devil's advocate as I know the sort of questions that will be faced. Please don't think I am trying to be argumentative!

Masquerade_2

Kimitatsu wrote: »

The SOGA is there to protect the consumer and is valid in everyday transactions not just when going to court.

You are right but they can only be enforced through a legal process, that's all I was getting at.